One of the low points in the level of appreciation I have for our Congress came February 12, 1999 when the Senate voted on the impeachment of then President Bill Clinton. The most disturbing thing was neither the proceedings nor the ultimate decision; the most disturbing thing was the distribution of votes. I watched the vote live on television, and remember my growing anger as virtually every Republican (except 5) voted “guilty” and every single Democrat voting “not guilty”.

Now, it is a certainty that the outcome of the vote was known beforehand, probably down to the vote count; so nobody who voted seriously thought impeachment would be successful. In that case, the vote was largely symbolic (though it hurt the Republicans due to what was essentially a colossal waste of time and political effort). The symbolism though, was sickening, depressing and embarrassing.

The Founding Fathers believed that the House of Representatives would be a body composed of individualists, each with sectional interests based on the issues relevant to their relatively small constituency. House members were elected for two-year terms, to ensure their constituency would be afforded frequent opportunities to keep their Representatives aligned with their interests. Against the anticipated row of regional self-interest in the House, the Senate was anticipated to be a more deliberative body; slower to act, and more concerned with national rather than regional interests. To afford Senators the opportunity to develop a longer-term view and to protect them from the need to constantly cater to their constituency, six-year terms were enacted. These longer terms should allow a longer view, with more time for the effectiveness of policy decisions to be evidenced.
That was the idea…

The first contested Presidential race saw John Adams pitted against Thomas Jefferson. It was pretty clear *one* of them would win, so people lined up behind one or the other – and political parties were formed. These parties were naturally extended to a framework for other candidates to affiliate themselves with the “coat-tails” of national candidates, and to leverage and pool the communication and budgetary efforts.

With parties came partisanship, “We’ll pull together or we fall apart.” If the “other guy” had a party to back him, and a party to vote the way he wanted, then the only way to combat his leverage is to form a bloc to work en masse against him. The implication being that to be successful in politics you needed to be integrated into a party machine, and once in the machine, you’d better support the party platform.

As I’ve learned these things in the years since 1999, my revulsion over the proceedings I witnessed have diminished. Given that the outcome was a foregone (or at least fore-known) conclusion, as are most votes in Congress, the display of partisanship was fairly “safe”.

Partisanship runs so deep in Congress that it is formally institutionalized: Majority and minority leaders, whips and committee chairmen are all highly partisan positions with significant control over the agenda and operations of the institution. Anybody not complying with the party platform is significantly penalized in terms of re-election support, committee appointments and legislative support. Right or not, optimal or not, philosophically compliant with the abstract ideals of republics or not – partisanship is a powerful and entrenched aspect of our political system.
I can draw two insights from the reality of partisanship:

1) If the opposition party is more fractured than the lead party, the opposition party is less likely to mount a comeback.

“Divide and conquer” is an highly effective means to keep the opposition off balance. It also ensures the resources of the opposition party, be they intellectual or financial, will not be applied in force.

2) Pick your Battles

Certainly you have to define a strategy for winning elections; and such definition will include highly visible, highly motivating issues. In some sense it is these “defining issues” which are the substance of the war. Internecine disagreements, turf wars, and fights about semantics or matters of degree are far less motivating than big-picture issues. The best issues with which to frame a campaign are those with broad emotional impact, or which can be framed in emotionally intense ways. Arguments about budgets, statistics, redistricting etc. will be emotionally impactful to some, but will lack the broad appeal necessary to motivate or instigate voting. Picking the motivating platform issues, and communicating them passionately is critical to political success.

These two notions imply that unity around “hot button” issues is absolutely necessary for the benefits of party politics, namely pooled financial and human resources, imbedded machinery for communication and interpersonal networking. The two ways to diminish the power of a political collective is to weaken its internal machinery with fractious internal disputes, and to minimize its ability to convey passion about highly energized social and political issues. I suspect nothing makes Republicans happier than to have Democratic opponents engage in discussions and debates with toned-down passions, lack of consistency and off-putting intellectual abstraction.

What does all this imply? When the Democrats are in control of Congress again, there will be opportunities for refinement of the platform, and rarified debate about tactical options for implementing progressive, rational, and fiscally-responsible plans for: unassailable national security, social and economic progress and inclusiveness, scientifically sound policies for environmentally sustainable growth and other deeply impactful national issues. Until then, those of us who oppose the current direction of the Republican government should unite with a single, clear voice. We’ll sweat the small stuff once this dangerous régime with its totalitarian leanings, repressive zealotry, fantasy-land idealism and oligarchic infrastructure has been eliminated from our nation like the dangerous poison it is.

Thursday, August 31st, 2006 @ 2:43 pm Towards a New Liberalism
RSS 2.0 Trackback